Artillery

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 10 2002

We were just discussing some issues with Artillery today we noted that the artillery pieces we used the most in early test games are PzH2000 Panzerhaubitze or G6-Rhinos. Currently we have the G6 firing with a weaker attack value than most artillery, almost half of the M109A6 (14dmg vs 24dmg against armoured targets) but from what I read lately I may be giving it too little credit. Also, we where just discussing the fact that the G6 is limited in itâ€™s firing arc to forward firing due to the fact that if it fired sideways the recoil would toss the vehicle. We will be assuming that all wheeled artillery or artillery pieces that use a spade to counter recoil have only a 120-degree firing arc. Iâ€™d be curious what people think of our design.

In more recent games though, we have found a new "weapon of choice" wiht an Iraqi (hope the UN is looking for this!) 210MM wheeled artillery called "Al Fao". Due to the bore of the gun it has a range of 58km. has anyone heard much about this? Would it have the same punch as an M109A6? What are the chances of other countries trying larger bore/calibre guns to get the extra range? Also, we have it tagged as being available as of tech lvl 95 (meaning the player needs a tech level similar to North america in 1995) to build this. Should we make this a higher number? Because it is made it in Iraq it is tagged as a "world' equipment so any region can build it. Should we just dump it and assume that the project never gets completed?

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Dec 10 2002

As far as firing arc goes,with the time scale what it is I dont see any reason to limit firing arc at all .

Seems to me given the amount of time passage that the unit could just turn and fire as needed.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Dec 10 2002

Not quite. There is the issue of it firing while it's running away from enemy units. Most artillery shouldn't be able to.

As an aside... Sometimes I think it really sucks that we're making this game so "Real World Accurate"

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Dec 10 2002

If your talking about "routed" or forced retreating units I'd probably agree.
But if your talking about any unit moving away from the front or an enemy unit I would disagree.
Again I would base my disagreement on the time flow (and the scale of the map).
Shoot and scoot is a primary tactic of artillary.Firing and then moving from that location to avoid counter battery is how modern artillary operates (for the most part).
I dont see why the direction of the "scoot" would stop the "shoot" part.
Unless of course the enemy was in small arms range or less,in which case the art would be silly to stop and setup for a shot.

During a days activity I would imagine that an artillary unit could spend many hours moving,with stops for firing,resupply etc..
The direction the unit was moving doesnt dictate the direction the unit chooses to face when it stops.
I'd also say the direction the unit chooses to face can be changed by the unit when it wants to with the cost of a little time.
This could be shown by simply making the art lose an amount of time equal to the amount of time it gets to execute one or three fire mission/s.

Now I don't have any experience with actual time passage in the game.I am basing this on what you have said about 1 day being the smallest time setting.
Perhaps you could do a small mpeg showing the time passage and some movement or other activities so that I (and others) could form a more informed opinion.
Hey it wouldnt be me if I didnt ask you to do MORE work

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Dec 11 2002

The G-6 is one of the premier artillery pieces in the world. It is based on the G-5 towed 155mm gun, as I'm sure you know, and is considered the best single artillery piece in the world. It has a 40km range (Paladin has 36, I think - longer with rocket assisted projectiles). I would make the G-6 just slightly less powerful (no more than 5-10% statistically) than the Paladin because the Paladin has such an outstanding fire control capability.

As for turret rotation - I don't think it matters in the scale. Besides, when an artillery unit is retreating/withdrawing, it will usually have one battery firing while a second is moving and the third is setting up. They don't just all pick up and run at the same time - that is what a rout is. If the unit's been routed, chances are they don't have the command and control capability to coordinate the entire battalion and the crews themselves will be running for their lives.

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Dec 11 2002

OK - I just reread what you said. The attack values of a G-6 and a Paladin against an ARMORED target. Now.. that's different. Though they can fire the exact same ammunition (as far as I know, they are both NATO-standard) but the M-109A6 will usually have a lot of DPICM ammunition availabe to it. These are shells that pop a dozen or so anti-tank grenades above their target and are designed to kill tanks and infantry. They also fire, I think, BAT rounds which are similar to DPICM, but they pop out AT grenades that actively seek out enemy tanks (radar, I think). Kind of like mini-guided missiles.

These are technicalities though. The US Army would use the M-109A6 against an enemy with lots of tanks and armored vehicles to kill. The South Africans don't really have the need. Most of their enemies have, historically, been guerrillas or poorly trained armies with a handful of tanks much older than most of us here.

They have the potential to fire the same ammunition, but the doctrine of the armies themselves are what makes the M-109A6 more powerful against armored targets than the G-6.

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 11 2002

In checking our attack values, all artillery are more effective against soft (unarmored) targest than against hard (armored) targets. So the over-all damage capacity of the units should be slightly less for the G6, but with more of a focus on soft attack than on hard attack. How's this?;

M109;
Hard attack: 24
Soft attack: 32

G6;
Hard attack: 18
Soft attack: 34

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Dec 11 2002

On 2002-12-11 09:37, Balthagor wrote:
In checking our attack values, all artillery are more effective against soft (unarmored) targest than against hard (armored) targets.

As they should be!

So the over-all damage capacity of the units should be slightly less for the G6, but with more of a focus on soft attack than on hard attack. How's this?;

M109;
Hard attack: 24
Soft attack: 32

G6;
Hard attack: 18
Soft attack: 34

I'd go with that... I'd give that little extra push for the G-6 because they have more range and are purported to be the most accurate artillery piece in the world.

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 11 2002

Any comments on how the Russian equipment would stand up such as the new 2S19 MSTA or Frances new Ceasar wheeled artillery?

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 11 2002

Also, are there any missile artillery (MLRS) with ranges that can compete with ballistic artillery? Are they that much more effective? It seems to me that the cost in supplies alone will make missile artillery less efficient than ballistic artillery. But I also would have thought that missile artillery would be able to get into longer ranges without going as for as cruise missiles...?

It just seems that in all our test games, MLRSs have been ineffective...

SeaMonkey · Post by **SeaMonkey** » Dec 11 2002

I think the primary issue of effectiveness will depend on the doctrine for that unit. If it decides to "shoot and scoot" to avoid counter battery then it is less effective in its chosen mission. If it decides to hunker down in an improved position for offensive and defensive fire support for units or bombardment then it will be more effective until/if counter battery has effect. More salvos on target - greater effect.

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Dec 12 2002

On 2002-12-11 10:13, Balthagor wrote:
Also, are there any missile artillery (MLRS) with ranges that can compete with ballistic artillery? Are they that much more effective? It seems to me that the cost in supplies alone will make missile artillery less efficient than ballistic artillery. But I also would have thought that missile artillery would be able to get into longer ranges without going as for as cruise missiles...?

It just seems that in all our test games, MLRSs have been ineffective...

Well... MLRS units should have outstanding anti-armor capabilities. That's what they were designed for. Each rocket has hundreds of those little anti-tank grenades. They've also got those BAT submunitions for the MLRS too - but a lot more of those can fit into a 227mm rocket than a 155mm shell.

They've also got a cruise missile version of the MLRS called the ATACMS - two of which can be carried by a launch vehicle at a time. These missiles are designed to hit HQs and whatnot.

If I were programming the values of the MLRS - I'd give the following rough statistics:

MLRS basic: AT: 48 AP: 24
MLRS BAT: AT: 56 AP: 12
MLRS ATACMS: AT: 12 AP: 48

As for everything else, including foreign artillery.. I'll get to that when it's not 130 AM.

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Dec 12 2002

On 2002-12-11 09:55, Balthagor wrote:
Any comments on how the Russian equipment would stand up such as the new 2S19 MSTA or Frances new Ceasar wheeled artillery?

Oh hell... why not?

From what I hear, the 2S19 is a great piece of hardware. It's got a good rate of fire, but submunitions are not widely available for it, as far as I know.

I'd put it on par with an M-109A5 (pre-Paladin) artillery piece.

I honestly don't know enough about the Caesar to say anything...

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 13 2002

I assume that by AP you mean anti personel (soft target) and AT for anti tank(hard target)?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Balthagor on 2002-12-13 10:33 ]</font>

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Dec 13 2002

Yes.